MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4318754243 · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehad019

Postoperative atrial fibrillation: from mechanisms to treatment

2023· review· en· W4318754243 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Mario Gaudino, Antonino Di Franco, Lisa Q. Rong, Jonathan P. Piccini, Michael J. Mack

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsMedicineAtrial fibrillationIncidence (geometry)Clinical trialHeart failureStroke (engine)Intensive care medicineCardiac surgeryCardiologyInternal medicineRandomized controlled trialAdverse effect

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF) is the most common type of secondary atrial fibrillation (AF) and despite progress in prevention and treatment, remains an important clinical problem for patients undergoing a variety of surgical procedures, and in particular cardiac surgery. POAF significantly increases the duration of postoperative hospital stay, hospital costs, and the risk of recurrent AF in the years after surgery; moreover, POAF has been associated with a variety of adverse cardiovascular events (including stroke, heart failure, and mortality), although it is still unclear if this is due to causal relation or simple association. New data have recently emerged on the pathophysiology of POAF, and new preventive and therapeutic strategies have been proposed and tested in randomized trials. This review summarizes the current evidence on the pathogenesis, incidence, prevention, and treatment of POAF and highlights future directions for clinical research.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.985
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.010

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.280
GPT teacher head0.434
Teacher spread0.153 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations229
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart JournalSame topicAtrial Fibrillation Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207